Martin O’Malley, Not Hillary Clinton, May Be The Best Choice In 2016

Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley.

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley.

Last week I was talking with a friend about the dysfunctional nature of national politics.  My friend, a conservative, admitted that President Obama has done a good job with the economy. After picking my jaw up off of the ground, we discussed how we are less than thrilled with the idea of another Clinton in the White House. In sixteen of my thirty-one years, we’ve had a president named Clinton or Bush. To me, thinking about the possibility of eight more years under a Clinton or Bush seems less than ideal.

I will be the first to admit that I am an admirer of Bill Clinton. He has charm and wit could persuade Satan to pray if it satisfied his agenda. My point is not to judge Bill Clinton or the Bush’s on how they have performed as leaders, but to emphasize our desperate need to put a fresh face in the White House just as we did in 2008 by electing President Obama.

As liberals, we are in a good place. Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was a defining moment for the hopes and visions of progressives across America. In 2012, progressives let out a sigh of relief as we watched President Obama retain the White House and defeat corporatocracy in the form of Mitt Romney. Sure, President Obama has let us down on several key issues, but more importantly, we finally felt we had a true progressive in the White House. At this point, we progressives have to ask ourselves one important question. Do we really want another Bush or Clinton in the White House?

One Democratic candidate that can make an impact in the 2016 primary is Governor Martin O’Malley. He is a rising voice in the Democratic party; a party that needs strong progressive voices to hold its candidates accountable in the 2016 primaries.

Martin O’Malley began public service in 1991 as a member of the Baltimore City Council. In 1999, he was elected mayor of Baltimore where he served until he was elected governor of Maryland in 2007. O’Malley has all but formally announced a run for the White House in 2016. In a recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Martin O’Malley spoke about the need for the Presidency to be more than a crown that is passed between two families. When asked if he meant the Bush/Clinton families, he replied with “any two families,” but it doesn’t take much to know exactly who he is referring to. Also highlighted in the interview were his remarks about taking on special interests as well as addressing a 12 year decline in wages. In 2008, O’Malley publicly supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. But in 2016, he has the potential to become Clinton’s biggest challenger for the democratic nomination.

Let me be clear, our number one goal is and always will be to keep the Republicans, specifically the modern-day extremists like Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal out of the White House. While most progressives would love to see Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, we must be willing to unite behind the Hillary Clinton if she ends up getting the nomination.

Ben Madison

Ben Madison is a Liberal political activist who believes in an America where everyone is afforded the opportunities to achieve their goals and dreams regardless of color, race, gender, or socioeconomic status. He has spent time in Texas as well as North Carolina and currently resides in Louisiana. He is the founder of The Middle Class is Drowning on Facebook and can be followed on Twitter @BenHMadison.


Facebook comments

  • Jen

    If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I will vote for her as the lesser of two evils. I would just like to see the election process get overhauled to make it more equitable. In today’s world, with the technology we have, there is no reason to continue to use the antiquated Electoral College to elect a President – Go to Popular Vote. Also, there is no need to stagger Primary Elections. Having lived in Nebraska all of my adult life till last year, there was never any choice in candidates by the time we got to vote in a primary – down to one, maybe two that had not dropped out due to poor performance in the early voting states.
    There needs to be a limit on the amount of time spent campaigning and spending on elections. It bothers me that during an increasingly lengthy campaign season, the elected officials are NOT doing the job they are currently in, but focusing on their next job. In the corporate world, how long would they be collecting a paycheck while actively seeking other employment?
    We need to return government to be PUBLIC SERVICE, not a career.

    • JuliaRobbins

      You got one thing right, we would be electing one of two evil individuals (your words) so why exactly are we willing to do this???????
      Your last sentence summed it up brilliantly. Hillary is looking out for #1, a career and certainly not as a public servant.
      She had her chance and didn’t accomplish much other than to strut her stuff. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
      We need NEW BLOOD in that office, SOMEONE THAT WE CAN TRUST TO RUN OUR COUNTRY, but most certainly NOT HILLARY CLINTON or the BUSH family!!!

      • Jen

        “You got one thing right, we would be electing one of two evil individuals (your words) so why exactly are we willing to do this???????”

        Because that is the way our election process is set up. We have a two-party system where the “party” chooses who will be the nominee, and the Electoral College casts the votes that elect the President. It is an archaic and flawed system, but it is what we have. Third party candidates are nice, but tend to swing the election one way or the other – the only truly viable candidates (meaning they can collect enough electoral votes to win) are the two from the two major parties.

      • strayaway

        The process is set up that way because the 1% pre-select our presidential candidates to guarantee that they win either way. There are no significant differences between Jeb and Hillary regarding bankers privileges, the encroaching police state, the abrogation of our privacy, oil related wars, the importation of cheap foreign labor, or the TPP. They are up to their necks in corruption. They both represent the will of the US Chamber of Commerce. That is why the fight in both parties is to choose a primary candidate who is not beholden to the 1%. It is an uphill battle because corporations own the media and the money. But to be blasé about voting for the “lesser of two evils” perpetuates evil.

      • Jesus is not running.

      • strayaway

        That’s for sure. So its up to you to give us Barabas.

    • strayaway

      “If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I will vote for her as the lesser of two evils.”

      Hillary accepted $8.3M from a Ukraine oligarch and $7M from Saudis for her foundation while she was Secretary of State. Hillary supported bombing Serbia, Libya, and Syria. You did get the “evil” part right.

      “”You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.” -Hillary Clinton

      She bought a $2.85M house just after leaving the White House anyway. Maybe she has good credit or dabbled in Cow futures some more.. These are all reasons progressives should be busting their tails getting someone like Warren nominated instead of being resigned to voting for evil.

  • Jim Bean

    I wish the author had asked his conservative friend just what he thought Obama did (besides being in the vicinity at the time) that helped the economy.

  • BobJThompson

    Just another corporate lackey. Albeit a little less evil/corrupt than Hillary.

  • Macdoodle

    Walker/Rubio 2016